I'm guessing RobertLumley's "Why would you downvote a meetup post?" caused people to upvote. I know I like to upvote when someone points out unnecessary-seeming downvotes.

Oh, yes, I've agreed with you about that for a long time. The grandparent comment wasn't actually my (only) reminder.

Speaking of copies, I keep meaning to write a LOCKSS plugin for LessWrong. This comment will be my note-to-self, or anyone else who wants to do it first.

(interested in hearing how other donors frame allocation between SI and CFAR)

I still only donate to SI. It's great that we can supposedly aim the money at FAI now, due to the pivot towards research.

But I would also love to see EY's appeal to MoR readers succeed:

I don’t work for the Center for Applied Rationality and they don’t pay me, but their work is sufficiently important that the Singularity Institute (which does pay me) has allowed me to offer to work on Methods full-time until the story is finished if HPMOR readers donate a total of $1M to CFAR.

Upvoted for explaining how polls work.

And after skimming the paper, the only thing I could find in response to your point is:

Coercion detection. Since our aim is to prevent users from effectively transmitting the ability to authenticate to others, there remains an attack where an adversary coerces a user to authenticate while they are under adversary control. It is possible to reduce the effectiveness of this technique if the system could detect if the user is under duress. Some behaviors such as timed responses to stimuli may detectably change when the user is under duress. Alternately, we might imagine other modes of detection of duress, including video monitoring, voice stress detection, and skin conductance monitoring [8, 16, 1]. The idea here would be to detect by out-of-band techniques the effects of coercion. Together with in-band detection of altered performance, we may be able to reliably detect coerced users.

How easily could the SI lose important data (like unpublished research) in, say, a fire or computer malfunction?

Thank you! And I just gave $200 to SI on top of the $50/month they automatically get from me.

In FAQ #6:

Friendly AI is a problem of cognitive science.

I think this un-argued-for assertion makes the site seem (and be) less rigorous. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better concise justification for why FAI researchers should read about cognitive science.